Maybe make a new bug report? With this “new” information?
Looks like there is no longer any reason to play any other nation besides Russia. Devs really just hate anything that isnt Russian and do not care about historical accuracy, all motivation to play knowing that whatever vehicle I use will be third-rate if it’s not russian is killing the drive to play this game.
8 Likes
This is so exhausting. The main info on the tank is classified, but plenty of sources say there is DU in the front hull and estimation of 600mm protection against KE rounds. You wont be able to get the accurate information as its highly classified and want get the wording your looking for. So you ether dont care about the american tech tree and just use to to throw out tanks like “click bait” because its just that for you to get $70. There is no reason to play American tech tree then at high br. You can give the abrams 5000mm heat protection and would still do nothing since everyone uses KE rounds.
Sep V3 on its way everyone! it weighs 120 tones 5000mm of heat protection 200mm of KE protection, with a top speed of 15mph get the click bait now for $70 so you can get a head start in getting this newest and great tank!!
10 Likes
Dear Gaijin
I like the unique meachnism of Warthunder and I am willing to pay for it
This proves I have spent a lot on Warthunder. However, the horribly weak VT4a-1 makes me unwilling to pay more on WTarthunder, I hope you may treat it equally, only that I will start buying Golden eagles again
3 Likes
I don’t know guys. I have a feeling that the Abrams is still getting stomped hard…
EDIT: don’t mind the Germany winrate bit. My friend wanted to grind his PSO and 2A7V.
3 Likes
Yes I know.
the sides might not have DU in them
You’re arguing that you think the sides [of the hull I assume, you’re also being vague just like the document now, lol] do though… if they did, then there would have to be lines in this license for both the storage of those side hull pieces AND for the contaminated stuff in working with the side hull pieces.
why would the sides ne storage for contaminants if they are not in contact with DU?
They wouldn’t, if the side hull has no DU. But then why did you give this as a possible source then for the hull having DU bruh? Or if that wasn’t the point, then I don’t know why you posted it.
it has DU on Sides, confirmed here
2 Likes
They made it clear they will not make any existing or future NATO vehicles better armoured because “they believe” or “this 30 years out of date document states something else”.
They also made it clear that they do not believe in Western APFSDS having been specifically designed to combat ERA.
All of this is basically them “believing” the West is incapable of technological progress to achieve their requirements.
Honestly? This is a losing battle unless something happens.
13 Likes
That quite clearly says “TURRET side armor” not “hull side armor”
The conversation with the other guy was about whether the “sides” in question were only the turret sides, or also the hull sides, so your source doesn’t help with that.
Ah, I see
Yeah I agree.
I was mostly just poking fun of their line that the faster reload would make the Abrams far more effective against all opponents (which is somewhat true, even if I don’t fully agree, it surely didn’t make the situation of playing top tier US any better), and that they would consider giving M829A3 if things didn’t get better.
So Gaijin are you going to do something to actually help make US top tier a bit better for the actually decent players or was that a lie to? are you just content with their super low winrate?
EDIT: Fun fact. I queued most of the launch week/weekend with Germany as the US, so my winrate was around 74% in the launch weekend after I got the SEPv2. Since then my winrate has dropped by nearly 15%.
My argument: side hull has no DU.
Front hull does.
Maybe, but your source you gave doesn’t clearly suggest that either.
If we already agree that the mentions of “side” in that document all refer to side turret armor, then that’s already a clear example then that sometimes they include and sometimes they drop the “turret” detail from the phrase. Thus, similarly, “front DU armor” there might be “front TURRET DU armor” with the word turret just dropped, as they dropped it in one place when referring to side turret armor.
(Also I agree with Gaijin in their post today on this particular source, that a license does not clearly tell you which vehicles they’re using the license on if any. Possibly experimental or prototype ones only"
Is it even possible?
Even if the Ju 288 problem is gone, people who need to grind without skills will just switch the bombers they play such as Do 217.
If you were an old player, you should remember that people used to spam Do 217 or Yer-2 for grinding.
we don’t. i’ve explicitly stated otherwise many times.
Just noticed that they deleted my reply saying their reasoning is asinine and tone-deaf so I will say it again.
Gaijin’s reasoning to gut the Abrams, Leopards, Challengers, Arietes, and Merkavas are asinine and tone-deaf. They really are begging for another boycott now.
3 Likes
You: “My argument: side hull has no DU.”
Also you: “Here’s a source clearly talking about some sort of side armor”
Oh so you must agree it means the side turret armor. You: “No”
Uhhhh? So you don’t think it’s referring to side turret AND you don’t think it’s referring to side hull… Do you think it’s side… track armor? There aren’t really any other “sides” LEFT for it to be referring to, lol
Where did i say this?
to clarify, the source i linked talks about BOTH turret sides AND hull sides, but only specifies DU for turret sides, i.e not DU armor in hull sides. BUT it mentions DU for front hull.
the reason its hull is that they specify “turret side” and “side” separately and thus would have specified “turret front” as well if they did not mean hull.
You guys have a way of upsetting everyone all the time. What about the Chinese tank fix?
1 Like
??? That was explicitly your whole point in posting it: Answering your concerns regarding spall liners, MBTs and Aircraft - #852 by Necronomica
If you agreed that the DU was never in the side hull, then your source does actually the exact opposite of what you originally claimed it does.
It actually in that case proves that they are IN-consistent with their wording, and sometimes mention the “turret” part out loud, and sometimes don’t, since they say it both ways there, and since you think both are referring to side turret armor (since you don’t think side hull armor exists)
Therefore the same people who inconsistently bother to mention “turret” or not when talking about the side turret, are also are liable to only sometimes mention “turret” for the front, as well, and sometimes not mention that word, even if still talking about the turret front.
BUT it mentions DU for front hull.
No, it doesn’t. It just says “front armor” NOT “front hull armor”. And again, since they showed they are inconsistent in specifying “turret” or not on the side, they could easily be talking about “front [turret] armor” when they vaguely say “front armor” as well, the same way